Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

A description of classical field equations using extensions of graded Poisson brackets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that extensions of graded Poisson brackets on fibered graded Dirac manifolds encode the Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl field equations and the evolution of arbitrary differential forms, with special Hamiltonian forms as the…

desk verdict A real extension of the graded Poisson bracket framework with nontrivial worked examples, but the general theorems are conditional on an unproved existence assumption that the conclusions understate. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04743 v1 pith:5FRBKMZQ submitted 2025-07-07 math-ph math.MP

Manuel de León , Rubén Izquierdo-López This is my paper
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 53D1770S0558A10
keywords gradedPoissonbracketsDiracstructuresmultisymplecticgeometryHamilton–DeDonder–WeylequationsspecialHamiltonianformsclassicalfieldtheoriesYang–Millsfiberedmanifolds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper develops a bracket formalism for classical field theories in which the Hamiltonian and the observables are treated on equal footing, as differential forms of possibly different degrees. It constructs extensions of graded Poisson brackets on graded Dirac manifolds and shows that the bracket of a Hamiltonian n-form H against a Hamiltonian form α gives the evolution of α along solutions of the field equations. In the regular case this recovers the standard Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl equations. The paper also singles out the special Hamiltonian forms, whose bracket with H is independent of the arbitrary choices made in constructing the extension, making them natural candidates for conserved quantities. The formalism is applied to regular Lagrangians and to Yang–Mills theories.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the sharp morphism ♯_a: S^a → $Λ^{{n+1−a}}$TM/$K^{{n+1−a}}$ of a regular graded Dirac structure, which already determines the original graded Poisson bracket through the contraction formula {α, β} = (−1)^{deg_H β} ι_{♯_{b+1}(dβ)} dα. The paper extends these morphisms in three steps: first to higher-order subbundles S^b, then to exterior powers ($S^{1}$)^{∧a}, and finally to subfamilies S^a[j] of forms whose exterior derivative admits a compatible extension. Brackets are defined by the same contraction formula once an extension e♯_n is chosen. The key existence condition is that a vertical-valued extension e♯_n compatible with e♯_1 exists; when it does, −e♯_n(dH) + 1 defines a semi-basic horizontal lift, which is the connection that solves the field equations.

What would settle it

Take a concrete almost regular Lagrangian not covered by the Yang–Mills example, compute the bundle $S^{{n+1}}$[n] explicitly, and check whether it is a vector subbundle admitting a vertical-valued extension e♯_n compatible with e♯_1; if the compatibility equation has no solution, the evolution formula of Theorem 4.1.1 cannot hold for that theory. Alternatively, exhibit two different vertical extensions e♯_n that induce the same horizontal lift modulo K_1 for a fixed Hamiltonian, which would break the bijection of Theorem 4.1.2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dynamics of a classical field theory can be written entirely in terms of a graded Poisson bracket: for a Hamiltonian n-form H, the pullback of dα by a solution is dα + {α, H}, where {·, ·} is one of the constructed extensions of the graded bracket. Theorem 4.1.1 proves that for any vertical-valued extension of the sharp morphisms there exists an Ehresmann connection h solving the Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl equations determined by H and satisfying h*(dα) = dα + {α, H} for every Hamiltonian form of degree between 0 and n−1. Theorem 4.1.2 gives the converse correspondence: choices of such extensions are in bijection with affine assignments of connections that solve the equations. The paper then identifies special Hamiltonian forms, characterized by the condition that α ∧ ε is Hamiltonian for every closed basic form ε, and proves that their bracket with the Hamiltonian is independent of the extension, with a sufficient condition under which they form a subalgebra.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that for every order j the required compatible extension e♯_j of the sharp morphisms exists on the subbundle $S^{{a}}$[j], in particular a vertical-valued e♯_n compatible with e♯_1; the paper notes in Remark 3.3.1 that such compatible extensions may not exist, and in the examples the extension is produced by explicit computation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In regular field theories, the bracket formalism reproduces the standard Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl equations, so it extends the mechanical Poisson-bracket picture to fields.
  • Every Hamiltonian form of degree 0 to n−1 has a candidate evolution dα + {α, H} once a vertical extension is chosen, and choices of such extensions correspond exactly to choices of connections solving the equations.
  • Special Hamiltonian forms have evolution independent of the extension, so on a solution their closedness is a well-defined notion of conserved quantity; under the theorem's hypotheses they form a subalgebra of observables with defined evolution.
  • The construction applies to almost regular Lagrangians, not only regular ones, because the graded Dirac structure can be pulled back to the image of the reduced Legendre transformation; the Yang–Mills example yields the standard Yang–Mills equations from the bracket.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the correspondence of Theorem 4.1.2 extends globally, quantizing the bracket may amount to choosing a connection, since the extension-dependence is exactly the choice of horizontal lift.
  • The subalgebra of special Hamiltonian forms may coincide with the observables that survive reduction by symmetries, connecting to the reduction questions raised in the introduction, though the paper does not prove this.
  • For degenerate field theories beyond the Yang–Mills example, one could test whether the bundle S^{a}[j] is a vector subbundle and whether a compatible vertical extension exists; if it fails, the bracket evolution description breaks down for that theory.
  • The evolution formula h*(dα) = dα + {α, H} could be compared with the constraint algorithm for presymplectic systems, since the extension-dependence for non-special forms may encode the constraints; the paper leaves this open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theory of extensions of graded Poisson brackets on graded Dirac manifolds and applies it to classical field theories. The authors define Hamiltonians as n-forms, introduce an extension e♯1 of the sharp map to forms of arbitrary degree, and then study further extensions e♯j to a family of subbundles S^a[j]. The main dynamical result, Theorem 4.1.1, states that when a vertical-valued extension e♯n exists, an Ehresmann connection whose horizontal lift is determined by the bracket satisfies h*(dα) = dα + {α,H}_{e♯n}, recovering the Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl equations. The paper also identifies a subfamily of special Hamiltonian forms whose evolution is independent of the choice of extension, and it treats the regular covariant formalism and Yang–Mills theories as examples.

Significance. If the general construction is valid, the paper offers a unified bracket-theoretic framework for covariant field equations and introduces a natural candidate algebra of forms with well-defined evolution, namely the special Hamiltonian forms. The detailed proofs of the structural results in Sections 3 and 4, together with the explicit recovery of the standard Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl equations and the Yang–Mills equations in Section 5, provide independent support for the main mechanism. The notion of special Hamiltonian forms is a useful contribution. However, the advertised general applicability is currently limited by unresolved existence assumptions in the core construction, so the significance of the paper as a general theory is conditional on closing those gaps.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Remark 3.3.1; Theorem 4.1.1] The central dynamical theorem is conditional on the existence of a vertical-valued extension e♯n on S^{n+1}[n] (or on Γ). The paper itself states in Remark 3.3.1 that a compatible extension may not exist, and no general existence theorem is proved for the class of almost regular Lagrangians mentioned in the conclusions. Consequently, for a Hamiltonian H whose dH is not in the image of any vertical-valued compatible extension, Proposition 4.1.1 and Theorem 4.1.1 have empty hypotheses and the bracket construction does not produce the Ehresmann connection solving the Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl equations. The examples in Section 5 construct e♯n explicitly, but the general claim needs either a proof of existence under the standing assumptions or a reformulation that states the general results as conditional and restricts the scope.
  2. [§3.3, definition of S^a[j]] The definition of S^a[j] and the subsequent diagram treat S^a[j] as a vector subbundle; the text explicitly assumes this for S^a[2] ("which we shall assume to be a subbundle") and then proceeds without proving the analogous regularity for general j. This is load-bearing because the bracket {·,·}_{e♯n} is defined only on forms whose exterior derivative lies in S^{a+1}[n]. Without an argument that these subspaces have constant rank, or a statement of this regularity as an explicit standing hypothesis, Theorem 4.1.1 cannot be applied beyond the examples.
  3. [Theorem 4.1.2] The asserted bijection between vertical-valued extensions e♯n on Γ and affine maps γ is only meaningful if the two families are nonempty, and the proof does not establish that every α∈Γ is dH for some Hamiltonian H. The converse also needs to show that the locally defined e♯n(dH) assemble into a well-defined bundle map on all of Γ; property (i) of γ alone does not prove surjectivity of the map H ↦ dH onto Γ. Thus the theorem currently establishes an equivalence between possibly empty families rather than the existence of the extension required by Theorem 4.1.1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 3.3.1] The statement writes the domain of e♯n as V^{n-a}M, but for a≥n it should be V^{a-n}M; as written the degree is negative for a>n.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos: "sveral" in Remark 2.3.3, "Eheresmann" in Theorem 4.1.1, and "dregree" in Section 1; the capitalization of "Hamilton–de Donder–Weyl" is also inconsistent.
  3. [§5 and Conclusions] The conclusion states that the theory works with any almost regular Lagrangian, but Section 5.2 only verifies the Yang–Mills case; the general pullback construction for N = Im Leg_L requires the hypotheses of Proposition 2.2.3, which are not checked for an arbitrary almost regular Lagrangian.
  4. [Definition 4.1.1] The object 1_n is used in the definition of a Hamiltonian before its contraction convention is fully explained; a sentence recalling that 1_n acts by contraction with the identity on ∧^n T*M would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central extension construction and the HDW-equation results are conditional theorems rather than definitions or fits; the main limitation is a missing general existence result for the extensions, which is explicitly acknowledged and does not make the argument circular.

full rationale

The paper builds a conditional theory: Definition 3.3.1 of S^a[j] is the set of forms for which a compatible extension exists, and Remark 3.3.1 explicitly warns that such an extension may not exist. Theorem 4.1.1 and Proposition 4.1.1 are phrased under the hypothesis that a vertical-valued extension e#_n is given, so they are genuine conditional implications, not identities. The Hamilton–De Donder–Weyl equations in Definition 4.1.2 are stated independently of the chosen extension (they use e#_1), and the examples in Section 5 construct the required extensions explicitly and recover the standard HDW and Yang–Mills equations, providing an external benchmark. The only self-citation of note is Theorem 2.1.1 from the authors' preceding paper [34], used to justify the correspondence between graded Poisson brackets and the sharp maps; this is a stated theorem with its own assumptions and does not assume the extension results proved here, so it is ordinary reliance on prior work rather than a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is equivalent to its input by construction. The acknowledged existence gap (Remark 3.3.1 and the Skeptic Headline) is a limitation in scope, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central construction rests on structural assumptions rather than fitted numbers: the local generation hypotheses for the graded Dirac structure, the assumption that the bundles S^a[j] are subbundles, and the choice of a vertical-valued extension e_sharp_n. The paper explicitly flags the possible failure of such extensions in Remark 3.3.1 and checks the needed choices in the examples.

free parameters (1)
  • Choice of extension e_sharp_n on S^{n+1}[n] = case-dependent; for the regular theory: e_sharp_n(dy^j wedge d^n x) = n^{-1} dx^mu tensor d/dp^mu_j, and…
    The extended bracket and the associated connection depend on this choice; the dynamics in Theorem 4.1.1 is defined with respect to a chosen extension. The paper shows the field equations in Definition 4.1.2 do not depend on the extension, but the evolution of arbitrary forms does.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The subbundles S^a satisfy the local generation hypotheses (i) and (ii) from Section 2.1: local generation by Hamiltonian forms and existence of symmetry vector fields.
    Invoked to ensure non-trivial Hamiltonian forms and the validity of the Leibniz rule and symmetry invariance, leading to Theorem 2.1.1; the paper asserts the theories considered will satisfy them.
  • domain assumption The bundles S^a[j] defined in Section 3.3 are vector subbundles.
    Required to define the final extension e_sharp_n; the paper states 'which we shall assume to be a subbundle' without proof.
  • domain assumption The chosen extension e_sharp_n takes vertical values on dH (or dH is such that this holds).
    Needed in Proposition 4.1.1 and Theorem 4.1.1 to construct a horizontal lift solving the Hamilton-de Donder-Weyl equations; the paper verifies this in the examples by explicit computation.
  • domain assumption For each special Hamiltonian form there exists a multivector field U_alpha satisfying the conditions in Theorem 4.2.3.
    This sufficient condition for the subalgebra property is manually verified in the regular and Yang-Mills examples.
invented entities (2)
  • Special Hamiltonian forms
    purpose: Subfamily of Hamiltonian forms whose bracket with any Hamiltonian is independent of the extension, making them candidates for conserved quantities.
    Mathematical construct defined in Definition 4.2.1; its existence is demonstrated in the paper's examples, but no external falsifiable prediction is attached.
  • Extended brackets {·,·}_e_sharp_n
    purpose: Brackets defined on forms of arbitrary degree via choices of extended sharp morphisms.
    New construction; depends on choices and is not externally constrained.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A description of classical field equations using extensions of graded Poisson brackets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FRBKMZQ

@misc{pith2026250704743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A description of classical field equations using extensions of graded Poisson brackets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FRBKMZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04743}
}
read the original abstract

As it is well-known, Poisson brackets play a fundamental role both in mechanics and in classical field theories. In this paper we develop a theory of extensions of graded Poisson brackets in graded Dirac manifolds. We then show how these extensions can be used to obtain the field equations of a particular theory as well as the evolution of forms of arbitrary order, in a similar way that ordinary Poisson brackets provide in mechanics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Graded Poisson and graded Dirac structures

    M. de León and R. Izquierdo-López. “Graded Poisson and graded Dirac structures”.Journal of Math- ematical Physics66.2 (Feb. 2025), p. 022901.issn: 0022-2488. doi: 10.1063/5.0243128

    doi:10.1063/5.0243128 2025

  2. [2]

    Poisson–Poincaré reduction for field theories

    M. A. Berbel and M. Castrillón-López. “Poisson–Poincaré reduction for field theories”. Journal of Geometry and Physics191 (2023), p. 104879.issn: 0393-0440. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geomphys.2023.104879

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Categorified Symplectic Geometry and the Classical String

    J. C. Baez, A. E. Hoffnung, and C. L. Rogers. “Categorified Symplectic Geometry and the Classical String”. en. Commun. Math. Phys.293.3 (Feb. 2010), pp. 701–725.issn: 1432-0916. doi: 10.1007/ s00220-009-0951-9

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    Reduction ofL∞-Algebras of Observables on Multisymplectic Manifolds

    C. Blacker, A. M. Miti, and L. Ryvkin. “Reduction ofL∞-Algebras of Observables on Multisymplectic Manifolds”. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications(July 2024). Publisher: SIGMA (Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Application). issn: 1815-0659. doi: 10.3842/sigma.2024.061

    doi:10.3842/sigma.2024.061 2024

  5. [4]

    Reduction of multisymplectic manifolds

    C. Blacker. “Reduction of multisymplectic manifolds”. Letters in Mathematical Physics 111.3 (May 2021). issn: 1573-0530. doi: 10.1007/s11005-021-01408-y

    doi:10.1007/s11005-021-01408-y 2021

  6. [5]

    A Brief introduction to Dirac manifolds

    H. Bursztyn. “A Brief introduction to Dirac manifolds”.6th Summer School on Geometric and Topo- logical Methods for Quantum Field Theory. Dec. 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    On Higher Dirac Structures

    H. Bursztyn, N. Martinez-Alba, and R. Rubio. “On Higher Dirac Structures”.International Mathemat- ics Research Notices2019.5 (Mar. 2019), pp. 1503–1542.issn: 1073-7928.doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnx163

    doi:10.1093/imrn/rnx163 2019

  8. [7]

    Bursztyn and M

    H. Bursztyn and M. Crainic. Dirac geometry, quasi-Poisson actions and D/G-valued moment maps

    work page

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Dirac Structures and Nijenhuis Operators

    H. Bursztyn, T. Drummond, and C. Netto. “Dirac Structures and Nijenhuis Operators”.Math. Z.302.2 (2022). 10.1007/s00209-022-03078-5, pp. 875–915

    2022 doi

  2. [9]

    Homotopy moment maps

    M. Callies, Y. Frégier, C. L. Rogers, and M. Zambon. “Homotopy moment maps”.Advances in Math- ematics 303 (Nov. 2016), pp. 954–1043.issn: 0001-8708. doi: 10.1016/j.aim.2016.08.012

    2016 doi

  3. [10]

    Hamiltonian structures on multisymplectic manifolds

    F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort, and M. de León. “Hamiltonian structures on multisymplectic manifolds”.Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino54.3 (Jan. 1996), pp. 225–236

    1996

  4. [11]

    On the geometry of multisymplectic manifolds

    F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort, and M. de León. “On the geometry of multisymplectic manifolds”.Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society. Series A. Pure Mathematics and Statistics66.3 (June 1999). Pub- lisher:CambridgeUniversityPress(CUP),pp.303–330. issn:0263-6115. doi: 10.1017/s...

    1999 doi

  5. [12]

    On the Multisymplectic Formalism for First Order Field Theories

    J. F. Cariñena, M. Crampin, and L. A. Ibort. “On the Multisymplectic Formalism for First Order Field Theories”. Diff. Geom. Appl.1.4 (1991). 10.1016/0926-2245(91)90013-Y, pp. 345–374

    1991 doi

  6. [13]

    Some remarks on Lagrangian and Poisson reduction for field theories

    M. Castrillón López and J. E. Marsden. “Some remarks on Lagrangian and Poisson reduction for field theories”. Journal of Geometry and Physics48.1 (Oct. 2003). Publisher: Elsevier BV, pp. 52–83.issn: 0393-0440. doi: 10.1016/s0393-0440(03)00025-1

    2003 doi

  7. [14]

    Dirac manifolds

    T. J. Courant. “Dirac manifolds”. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society319.2 (1990). Publisher:AmericanMathematicalSociety(AMS),pp.631–661. issn:1088-6850. doi: 10.1090/s0002- 9947-1990-0998124-1

    1990 doi

  8. [15]

    N. L. Delgado. Multisymplectic Structures and Higher Momentum Maps. 2018. arXiv: 1811 . 01415 [math.SG]

    2018

  9. [16]

    I. Dorfman. Dirac structures and integrability of nonlinear evolution equations. Nonlinear Sci. Theory Appl. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1993

    1993

  10. [17]

    Dirac structures of integrable evolution equations

    I. Dorfman. “Dirac structures of integrable evolution equations”.Phys. Lett. A125.5 (1987), pp. 240–

    1987

  11. [18]

    The Poisson Bracket for Poisson Forms in Multisymplectic Field Theory

    M. Forger, C. Paufler, and H. Roemer. “The Poisson Bracket for Poisson Forms in Multisymplectic Field Theory”.Reviews in Mathematical Physics15.07 (Sept. 2003). arXiv:math-ph/0202043, pp. 705–

    2003 arXiv

  12. [19]

    A cohomological framework for homotopy moment maps

    Y. Frégier, C. Laurent-Gengoux, and M. Zambon. “A cohomological framework for homotopy moment maps”. Journal of Geometry and Physics97 (Nov. 2015), pp. 119–132.issn: 0393-0440. doi: 10.1016/ j.geomphys.2015.07.010

    2015

  13. [20]

    The Poincaré-Cartan invariant in the calculus of variations

    P. L. García. “The Poincaré-Cartan invariant in the calculus of variations”.Symposia Mathematica, Vol. XIV (Convegno di Geometria Simplettica e Fisica Matematica & Convegno di Teoria Geometrica dell’Integrazione e Varietà Minimali, INDAM, Rome, 1973). Istituto Nazionale di Alt...

    1973

  14. [21]

    J. Gaset. Geometric Gauge Freedom in Multisymplectic Field Theories. 2022. arXiv: 2209 . 11212 [math-ph]

    2022

  15. [22]

    A new canonical affine bracket formulation of Hamiltonian classical field theories of first order

    F. Gay-Balmaz, J. C. Marrero, and N. Martínez-Alba. “A new canonical affine bracket formulation of Hamiltonian classical field theories of first order”. en.Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matemáticas118.3 (May 2024), p. 103.issn: ...

    2024 doi

  16. [23]

    The Hamilton-Cartan formalism in the calculus of variations

    H. Goldschmidt and S. Sternberg. “The Hamilton-Cartan formalism in the calculus of variations”. Annales de l’Institut Fourier23.1 (1973), pp. 203–267.issn: 1777-5310. doi: 10.5802/aif.451

    1973 doi

  17. [24]

    An Introduction to Higher-Form Symmetries

    P. R. S. Gomes. “An Introduction to Higher-Form Symmetries”.SciPost Physics Lecture Notes(Sept. 2023), p. 74.issn: 2590-1990. doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.74

    2023 doi

  18. [25]

    Multisymplectic constraint analysis of scalar field theories, Chern-Simons gravity, and bosonic string theory

    J. Gomis, A. Guerra, and N. Román-Roy. “Multisymplectic constraint analysis of scalar field theories, Chern-Simons gravity, and bosonic string theory”.Nuclear Physics B987 (Feb. 2023), p. 116069.issn: 0550-3213. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022.116069

    2023

  19. [26]

    Presymplectic lagrangian systems. I : the constraint algorithm and the equivalence theorem

    M. J. Gotay and J. M. Nester. “Presymplectic lagrangian systems. I : the constraint algorithm and the equivalence theorem”. en.Annales de l’institut Henri Poincaré. Section A, Physique Théorique30.2 (1979), pp. 129–142

    1979

  20. [27]

    Z-Graded Extensions of Poisson Brackets

    J. Grabowski. “Z-Graded Extensions of Poisson Brackets”. Reviews in Mathematical Physics 09.01 (Jan. 1997). Publisher: World Scientific Publishing Co., pp. 1–27.issn: 0129-055X. doi: 10 . 1142 / S0129055X97000026. 38

    1997

  21. [28]

    On Darboux Theorems for Geometric Struc- tures Induced by Closed Forms

    X. Gràcia, J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, and N. Román-Roy. “On Darboux Theorems for Geometric Struc- tures Induced by Closed Forms”.Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fis. Nat. Ser. A-Mat.118.3 (2024). 10.1007/s13398-024-01632-w, p. 131

    2024 doi

  22. [29]

    N. Hitchin. Lectures on generalized geometry. 2010. arXiv:1008.0973 [math.DG]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [30]

    On field theoretic generalizations of a Poisson algebra

    I. V. Kanatchikov. “On field theoretic generalizations of a Poisson algebra”.Reports on Mathematical Physics 40.2 (Oct. 1997), pp. 225–234.issn: 0034-4877. doi: 10.1016/S0034-4877(97)85919-8

    1997 doi

  24. [31]

    Canonical structure of classical field theory in the polymomentum phase space

    I. V. Kanatchikov. “Canonical structure of classical field theory in the polymomentum phase space”. Reports on Mathematical Physics41.1 (Feb. 1998), pp. 49–90.issn: 0034-4877. doi: 10.1016/s0034- 4877(98)80182-1

    1998 doi

  25. [32]

    Kijowski and W

    J. Kijowski and W. M. Tulczyjew. A Symplectic Framework for Field Theories. Publication Title: Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1979.isbn: 978-3-540-09538-5. doi: 10.1007/3- 540-09538-1

    1979 doi

  26. [33]

    A Canonical Structure for Classical Field Theories

    J. Kijowski and W. Szczyrba. “A Canonical Structure for Classical Field Theories”.Commun.Math. Phys. 46.2 (1976). 10.1007/BF01608496, pp. 183–206

    1976 doi

  27. [35]

    Pre- multisymplectic constraint algorithm for field theories

    M. de León, J. Marín-Solano, J. C. Marrero, M. C. Muñoz-Lecanda, and N. Román-Roy. “Pre- multisymplectic constraint algorithm for field theories”.International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics02.05 (Oct. 2005). Publisher: World Scientific Publishing Co., pp. 839–...

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    de León and P

    M. de León and P. R. Rodrigues.Generalized Classical Mechanics and Field Theory: A Geometrical Ap- proach of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms Involving Higher Order Derivatives. North-Holland Mathematics Studies 112. North-Holland Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Cana...

    1985

  29. [37]

    Proof of the equivalence of the symplectic forms derived from the canonical and the covariant phase space formalisms

    J. Margalef-Bentabol and E. J. S. Villaseñor. “Proof of the equivalence of the symplectic forms derived from the canonical and the covariant phase space formalisms”.Physical Review D105.10 (May 2022). issn: 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.105.l101701

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    The Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket and interior products

    C. M. Marle. “The Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket and interior products”.Journal of Geometry and Physics 23.3 (Nov. 1997), pp. 350–359.issn: 0393-0440. doi: 10.1016/S0393-0440(97)80009-5

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    A generalization of Hamiltonian mechanics

    P. W. Michor. “A generalization of Hamiltonian mechanics”. Journal of Geometry and Physics 2.2 (1985), pp. 67–82.issn: 0393-0440. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0393-0440(85)90009-9

    1985 doi

  32. [40]

    L∞-Algebras from Multisymplectic Geometry

    C. L. Rogers. “ L∞-Algebras from Multisymplectic Geometry”. en. Letters in Mathematical Physics 100.1 (Apr. 2012), pp. 29–50.issn: 1573-0530. doi: 10.1007/s11005-011-0493-x

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    Multisymplectic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms of Classical Field Theories

    N. Román-Roy. “Multisymplectic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms of Classical Field Theories”. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications(Nov. 2009). issn: 1815-0659. doi: 10.3842/sigma.2009.100

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    L. Ryvkin. Darboux type theorems in multisymplectic geometry. 2025. arXiv:2503.03672 [math.SG]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    G. A. Sardanashvily. Gauge Theory in Jet Manifolds. Hadronic Press Monographs. Hadronic Press, Dec. 1993. isbn: 978-0-911767-60-5

    1993

  36. [44]

    G. A. Sardanashvily. Generalized Hamiltonian Formalism for Field Theory: Constraint Systems. Sin- gapore: World Scientific, 1995.isbn: 9789810220457

    1995

  37. [45]

    On the geometry of multi-Dirac structures and Ger- stenhaber algebras

    J. Vankerschaver, H. Yoshimura, and M. Leok. “On the geometry of multi-Dirac structures and Ger- stenhaber algebras”. en. Journal of Geometry and Physics 61.8 (Aug. 2011), pp. 1415–1425. issn: 03930440. doi: 10.1016/j.geomphys.2011.03.005

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    The Hamilton-Pontryagin principle and multi-Dirac structures for classical field theories

    J. Vankerschaver, H. Yoshimura, and M. Leok. “The Hamilton-Pontryagin principle and multi-Dirac structures for classical field theories”. en.Journal of Mathematical Physics53.7 (July 2012), p. 072903. issn: 0022-2488, 1089-7658.doi: 10.1063/1.4731481

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    Wagner and T

    M. Wagner and T. Wurzbacher.Notes on equivalent formulations of Hamiltonian dynamics on multi- cotangent bundles. 2024. arXiv:2410.21068 [math.SG]. 39

    2024

  40. [246]

    doi: 10.1016/0375-9601(87)90201-5

    issn: 0375-9601,1873-2429. doi: 10.1016/0375-9601(87)90201-5

    doi

  41. [743]

    issn: 0129-055X, 1793-6659.doi: 10.1142/S0129055X03001734

    doi

  42. [2008]

    arXiv: 0710.0639 [math.DG]. 37

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.